Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

dolphin-emu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 390 posts

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#121

Post by haswell »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #107
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like everything in technology, you have a choice. If you want openness at the expense of security and privacy, you can purchase an Android or Windows device. If you want security and privacy more than openness, you buy an iPhone. The Hacker News crowd is unique in that we want to have our cake and eat it too by making the iPhone work more like Android and expressing outrage that such a choice exists. So even though I…

>openness at the expense of security This is a false dilemma. You can have both.

And this is an oversimplification. Will you share some thoughts on how you can have both in an ecosystem like Apple’s?

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#122

Post by voxic11 »

jolux wrote: post #106
floatboth wrote: post #99

> [mapping memory WX] hasn't been forbidden on any of the prior platforms that Dolphin supports Well, rarely completely forbidden, but e.g. I think OpenBSD has been W^X by default for quite some time (though IIRC with a WX allowed flag per… FS mount?). Now on FreeBSD it's not default but it's there, and if you turn it on, you have to mark WX-mapping binaries by running `elfctl -e +wxneeded`. Firefox actually became W…

I didn't realize SpiderMonkey was W^X compliant. Does that mean Apple's arguments about third party browser security on iOS are less well-founded than I had believed? My impression was that performant JITs were incompatible with W^X.

No the issue on ios isn't that W^X is enforced, its that you can't mark a page that was writable as executable (whereas W^X just implies that a page can't be both writable and executable at the same time). Firefox has been W^X compliant by default since 2016 as its considered more secure in general.

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#123

Post by collaborative »

philistine wrote: post #42
jeroenhd wrote: post #24

It's clear AS is a great advancement in general computing, but every piece like this reads as "the hardware is amazing, and it's totally worth it to work around these arbitrary software restrictions". This performance would've been available on iPads years ago if it wasn't for Apple's blanket ban on JIT and the likes. Apple is one of those companies whose hardware I'd love to have if it wasn't for their software and…

It’s undeniable that a whole class of ARM software was prevented from even being conceived because it has to pass the App Store’s Byzantine set of rules. On the other hand, I see so many software developers vehemently refuse to notarize their Mac versions. Notarization is far less egregious and it pains me to see so many straight up refuse to even consider it as an alternative to the iron grip of the App Store.

I tried notarizing, but gave up after 2 weeks of trying. I used to offer an app that wrapped an entirely java-based (shipped with its own JavaSE JRE) app within an Apple Script launcher. I used to be able to sign it, but the notarization tool simply won't accept my app's bundle. So had to drop it

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#125

Post by jolux »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #33
jeroenhd wrote: post #24

It's clear AS is a great advancement in general computing, but every piece like this reads as "the hardware is amazing, and it's totally worth it to work around these arbitrary software restrictions". This performance would've been available on iPads years ago if it wasn't for Apple's blanket ban on JIT and the likes. Apple is one of those companies whose hardware I'd love to have if it wasn't for their software and…

Not to be contrary for being contrary, but for me it's pretty much he opposite. I've never had complaints about the software when I was an Apple customer (i.e. from 1992 to 2007) and don't have reasons that there is any particular software problem. But the hardware keeps me from buying macs. It doesn't matter how fast Apple's laptops become, as long as they don't have replaceable batteries, have insufficient RAM, and…

I'm definitely a little annoyed they don't bundle the extension cables with the MacBooks anymore. It feels like nickel-and-diming. That being said, MacBook displays do have antireflective coating, though it's been known to wear off historically. They have been pretty good about replacing it though.

As for RAM, you can get 13" MacBook Pros with 32GB of RAM and 16" MacBook Pros with 64GB of RAM, and if that's not enough you're probably not going to have the easiest time finding options with more from other manufacturers, especially in a form factor that isn't a gigantic brick.

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#126

Post by floatboth »

jolux wrote: post #106
floatboth wrote: post #99

> [mapping memory WX] hasn't been forbidden on any of the prior platforms that Dolphin supports Well, rarely completely forbidden, but e.g. I think OpenBSD has been W^X by default for quite some time (though IIRC with a WX allowed flag per… FS mount?). Now on FreeBSD it's not default but it's there, and if you turn it on, you have to mark WX-mapping binaries by running `elfctl -e +wxneeded`. Firefox actually became W…

I didn't realize SpiderMonkey was W^X compliant. Does that mean Apple's arguments about third party browser security on iOS are less well-founded than I had believed? My impression was that performant JITs were incompatible with W^X.

This Dolphin article is literally about making a performant JIT run on an OS that is, among other things, strictly W^X :)

> arguments about third party browser security on iOS

Well, W^X is just one mitigation technique. But also, the "security" arguments have always been kinda dubious. I don't think there's that much difference (at least philosophically) between an interpreter bug causing arbitrary crap to happen inside your app's sandbox and a JIT bug doing the same.

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#127

Post by foldr »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #33
jeroenhd wrote: post #24

It's clear AS is a great advancement in general computing, but every piece like this reads as "the hardware is amazing, and it's totally worth it to work around these arbitrary software restrictions". This performance would've been available on iPads years ago if it wasn't for Apple's blanket ban on JIT and the likes. Apple is one of those companies whose hardware I'd love to have if it wasn't for their software and…

Not to be contrary for being contrary, but for me it's pretty much he opposite. I've never had complaints about the software when I was an Apple customer (i.e. from 1992 to 2007) and don't have reasons that there is any particular software problem. But the hardware keeps me from buying macs. It doesn't matter how fast Apple's laptops become, as long as they don't have replaceable batteries, have insufficient RAM, and…

> do not come with glare-free screens

Do you mean that you want a matte screen? If not, Mac screens are generally among the brightest on the market and have very good anti-reflective coatings. Almost any competing laptop in the same price bracket is likely to have a lower quality screen.

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#128

Post by jolux »

voxic11 wrote: post #122
jolux wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't realize SpiderMonkey was W^X compliant. Does that mean Apple's arguments about third party browser security on iOS are less well-founded than I had believed? My impression was that performant JITs were incompatible with W^X.

No the issue on ios isn't that W^X is enforced, its that you can't mark a page that was writable as executable (whereas W^X just implies that a page can't be both writable and executable at the same time ). Firefox has been W^X compliant by default since 2016 as its considered more secure in general.

Ah I see. The iOS restriction makes sense, even though it's more aggressive.

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#129

Post by tw04 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #83
tw04 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Now you can argue these restrictions are unreasonable but many of us don’t want our iPads or iPhones to be like our computers. It seems to me a rather simple fix: give users an "unrestricted mode" just like Android has the ability to install from third party. By default keep it locked down, but allow the USER to make that decision, with ample warnings all over the place about what they're about to do. Heck, for all…

If you do that, guess what Fortnite would do right now. Guess what Facebook would do to get around Apple’s privacy restrictions right now. Guess what a ex-boyfriend would do right now to install a blocked spying app. For better or worse, the App Store being the exclusive way into the iPhone forces third parties to deal. Otherwise, they just tell the user to make the choice for them. If you even listen to interviews w…

>If you do that, guess what Fortnite would do right now. Guess what Facebook would do to get around Apple’s privacy restrictions right now. Guess what a ex-boyfriend would do right now to install a blocked spying app.

I guess I don't get your point, if a user wants to sideload fortnite or facebook, good for them? If an ex-boyfriend has your phone and your password you've probably got bigger issues than whether or not he can click a button to sideload an app.

>I do get the Apple Store one more, but as history has shown, people literally go to the Apple store to get iCloud theft locks removed by impersonating the owner and faking receipts.

I still don't follow your point, what on earth does that have to do with someone being allowed to use their phone how they want? You think someone is going to steal your phone, go to an Apple store and pretend to be you to have sideload enabled, then return the phone to you? I'm not saying it would be impossible for that to happen, but I would say: why would ANYONE go to that trouble? If this is another "well ex-boyfriend" issue you're talking about 1/10th of 1% of all users in existence. I don't think that should be the demographic with which we base all of the decisions on what an iphone can and can't do...

Re: Temptation of the Apple: Dolphin on macOS M1

#130

Post by jolux »

threeseed wrote: post #32
jeroenhd wrote: post #24

It's clear AS is a great advancement in general computing, but every piece like this reads as "the hardware is amazing, and it's totally worth it to work around these arbitrary software restrictions". This performance would've been available on iPads years ago if it wasn't for Apple's blanket ban on JIT and the likes. Apple is one of those companies whose hardware I'd love to have if it wasn't for their software and…

Apple’s blanket ban on interpreted code is not arbitrary. It is there to prevent apps circumventing the review process and security model ie. apps pretending to do X during the review process and then doing Y when in use or obfuscating their use of private APIs. Now you can argue these restrictions are unreasonable but many of us don’t want our iPads or iPhones to be like our computers.

It's not even a blanket ban on interpreted code, React Native depends on dynamically generating views using JavaScriptCore. Something like this is how Epic originally got around the payment restrictions. Presumably you're still allowed to use it to push updates, as long as you don't use it to circumvent the App Store rules.
Post reply on HN